Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-02-08

senns - hns1. Lef - hase iens snfk1ri-
SIS nnd o1unnon 1eGaa
NJ Henford el19ine ~ sEEumenf
sid, = 1873 fha tims for 11l1tna So
rawus 81 re 8apsem0 C1uEt wzs
shanzsd frun Jann1ry - Jar, sd he
lag 90 nuu4innsd En1ii I3s5s ard f1s1 .
shanes wnS nn4de bF shs 80 ID qneHssoz,
baek - Jaaaa<g. - thzt the s1rze1a
Gears - f17linN - 50 ias1 JAY an1 -
si1tfnR lnst ns1nfh iBstsaa, N sass8 have
psesed npos TIE qzsztian eefors "a
II Raed - 20 tee snpzsms Csaff ne
SCI IL COED - - tts Distress crurs-
FurtbeE. Is y nos neossszry shat ttfte
shoald b ~ sEplisit dstaiisd statsmsnt
~ The % esto f he acts % tbs senfEarys
Is i inlended By tie orEaDis la9 mss
ne title - 81 aes shoaid " 3 sboFf and
sxpiisit tern fairly tnaie1sfnR she SUD
jest-mslteE o. tie isRisia1i0n ecnszineo
ihsrkin- Is rests within The discrstisa
cf fhs Legislature bow far iat1 paEtic-
alkrs seey sail 20 IN tbs tiile- Looz -
this ast. e wholly andgnlg relates %
e0urts. Is has gnig one sab3sct. :. Z.
Courts. 41d sh4t sat - can Be Rsfnered
from 10 title by . fair and rsaspnabls
eonslxucfion of Il, and sneh csusfrns-
lion y EASILY reached - auy reasonable
nzaa - woman
Jades Jas0bs STATED the ervunds
npon which the decision Of the Sapfeme
Courf vas based. he hayinR heard tos
rsndisi0u 81 the same. Judzs Saeoos
vaa Opposed 10 . present. sssslon Of TIE
Court on grounds Of expedisney o.
cell a. Law.
W. h white considered the recent
decision Of she Saprsme Coazt binding
and IN point Ia She present ease ne
believed, under that deeislo1s the
title 70 the SCI relating 10 C0arts 70 Be
insufHsisnf, and the act, fer that reason.
insalsd. And, farther, thst EpOn 70
hearing OF shs case Of Hanlon %. Ter
Fitory ihe dsoisioa rendered woasd Be
reversed on fhe ground Of want Of jars
dietion 10 the Court 10 reEder sbe sane.
Mr.. white proposed that the Assocla-
ton telegraph Congsess asking that b
immediate legislation the SCI IN q1es-
tion Be validated.
NJ. MstoAIfe vas not IN position 70
express q definite opinion, bnt IVES In
slinea 70 favor the session.
James Hamilson Lewis, Esq-. vas IN
able 70 distinguish between the case OF
Hnuiou 90, Territary and the one under
dissassion. he suggested the in5astioe
Of trying accused persons a. the present
term Of Court IN 80 much ~ an eoq1is-
tsl then obtained could not be pleaded
il bfF Of subs queni prosecution FOR
the same offenss in cass u should be
hereafter desided that the present term
Of Court vas held without authority.
Mr.. Ronald thoneht the last point NOT
sell taken, for The reason thai there
would be no acqnittaik. -
The Chair then appointed Messrs.
HAnfosd, Haines and Burke 30 present
arauuenf 20 the court sustaining the
act, and Messrs. j. 4. Lewis. Ferry and
Jacobs contra
An amended motion that commit
Zee Of SIX be appointed By the Chair. OF
which President smith ahoaid be chair
man, 20 draft telegram asking Congress
fog immediats remedial legislation ~ 70
the acs In question, was less By vote
Of - 10 u.
An amended molten that . COMMITTEES
Of Ave be appointed 70 draft bill pro-
viding for toe appointment OF . afth
Judge for the Territory, and providing
for tie 70 disiEicslnR OF the territory
was carried unanim0usiy-and Messrs.
Halter, Ferry, Mstoalfe. White and
Hanford vera named By the Chair az
saoh committee.
Thersopon, on motion. the meeting
adjourned.
At2p. "a. court convened pursuant 10
adj JuFnment, and argument was had
upon the question before the court. e
follows: Governor Ferry, contra, stated
she effect Of the decision Of the .Su-
preme Court in Hanion W. Territory,
and argued that the title OF tue present
act (0mittIuR the words entitled
conrtss') was more indsfnite than that
hefore the court in that case. That,
leaving ous Of tue discussion fer the
present the question Of constitutional
limitation, ire object Of title TO leg
islative act Is 10 point out eoneisely
what follows detailed 10 the aos-aslde
from such Limitations any subject what
ever may be embraced within an act,
whether german 30 the title or not.
Soch acts are daily passed BY congress
Congress IN thai respeot being ooand
By Ne constitutional Limitation.
Bot an act Of the Legislature OF this
Territory must be 30 entitled that the
object Of the oct SHALL be expressed IN
the title, and that has not been done Ia
the present case. What can logically be
gathered from this titisf simply the
statement that chapter CIV OF the Code
OF Washington Territory 10 entitled
''eourts," for uRdeF the decision OF the
recent Supreme Court the reference
therein 10 nambeied chapter Is
naaQht. Bat that, IL IL be admitted for
the sake Of the argument that that
references is Sufficient 10 constitute 9
valid title, still the title is insufficient,
though 30 regarded. whoever framed
this act supposed the Law Of 1881 relating
70 courts TO Be still in force; whereas,
in fact, the same had been modified BY
the Legislature OF 1858. and parts OF u
absolutely repealed, 90 that the atteups
OF this aet is 10 amend an act not IN
exisienoe. However, there IL . ques-
ton arising as 10 whether the Lag Of
1888 in relation 20 the holding ct terms
Of court and amendatory OF that part
Of the Code did not, By reason Of tts
peculiar lanea age, become 9 part Of the
Code Of 1881.
Rsfsrs 20 act known as the I" Omnibus
bill" snbd. 7, validated BY Congress IN
1884. II the language Of said bill snakes
u . part Of che Code. veil and good.
II not, the set Of 1856 is nothing. a.
tho Lag Of 1881 referred 10 In its title
and throughout its provisions (admit-
ting As before said for the sake Of the
argument the reference 10 be sufficlent)
vas repealed and there vas In existence
no such Law Of 1881 70 be amended.
There must be some title 90 support
an act. In this case there IL absolutely
none. Had the set been eatttIed An
aat IN relation TO Courts" there could
have been no doubt as 70 its sufficieney,
ita generality beng no objection IN vieg
Of the lenieDoy universally allowed
legislatures in lhs use Of their discretion
~ TO the generality Of their titiaA
Bat no such construction can be log
icaily placed upon the title in question.
Haines, Supporting the act, argued
that the 60 called eOmnibus oilis was
validated BY express legislation BY Con
Rress 10 1854. and same vas confirmed
a. Of November sth, iSS2. the date Of
its supposed approval. Sc that BY the
terms Of the said act Of Congress. 80
veil ~ that and many Subsequent acts
Of the Legislature % Washington Ter
ritoFy, Congress and car Legislature
have formally recognised the Code Of
Washington Tertiary, and formally
adopted section 2ll9 Of The Code Of
washingtsn TsrriteFy.- Whistler or no
- hawa = Dns4a - A hasa 4 Saeffun